Re: My assumption is essentially that the projects onset at the end of the tabulation year.

I followed the same assumption after seeing your comment yesterday about the way supply additions were tabulated (I still find that disturbing). I got a less steep slope as a result (was originally around 3.4% when I simply used the dates given in Chris's table).

Then I guess the other obvious possibility is because you computed your production changes off EIA (total liquids?), whereas I was using averages of four series. I can check tonight whether that would account for the difference.

No, I used EIA (crude oil + condensates, monthly). I'm going to check in my code also.

Ok - that could well explain it. The EIA C&C line is the most negative of the four I used, so that would tend to give a higher base decline. I'll check quantitatively tonight.

I've redone the calculation using the O&GJ dataset:

The regression is:

5.2963e+3 - 2.64 * Year
R2=0.8552

The 95% confidence interval for the slope is [-2.64 -2.62]. Still higher than yours, whereas using the EIA data I got:

5.7767e+3 - 2.88 * Year
R2=0.8657

The fit quality is slightly better with the EIA.